Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

European Exchange Rate Mechanism

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) was a multilateral arrangement established on 13 March 1979 as the principal component of the European Monetary System (EMS) within the European Economic Community (EEC), designed to limit exchange rate fluctuations between participating currencies through agreed central parities and intervention obligations at specified margins, initially ±2.25% but widened to ±6% or ±15% for some currencies in later adjustments. The system pegged national currencies to the European Currency Unit (ECU), a weighted basket of EEC currencies, fostering monetary discipline and reducing variability to support economic convergence ahead of deeper integration. Functioning through central bank interventions and short-term credit facilities via the European Monetary Cooperation Fund, the ERM promoted stability by requiring participants to defend parity grids against speculative pressures, though frequent realignments—over 20 between 1979 and 1987—highlighted persistent inflationary divergences and asymmetric shocks, particularly from stronger economies like . A key achievement was the narrowing of bands in 1987 and the "Delors Committee" reforms, which reinforced credibility and paved the way for the and eventual (EMU), yet the mechanism's rigidity exposed vulnerabilities when policy autonomy clashed with fixed pegs. The ERM's defining crisis unfolded in 1992–1993 amid German reunification's inflationary spillover, divergent fiscal needs, and massive speculative attacks, forcing the and to suspend participation on 16 September 1992 (""), with subsequent devaluations for , , and others, costing central banks billions in failed defenses and underscoring causal strains from incomplete convergence rather than mere market panic. The original ERM effectively dissolved by 1999 with the 's launch, succeeded by ERM II for non-euro EU states, which maintains similar bands against the but with voluntary participation and looser enforcement, reflecting lessons on the perils of enforced parity without fiscal-monetary alignment.

Origins and Objectives

Establishment within the

The (EMS) was established through a resolution adopted by the on December 5, 1978, following discussions at the Summit in July 1978, with the aim of fostering monetary stability amid the collapse of the and the limitations of prior arrangements like the currency snake. The EMS incorporated the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) as its core component, designed to limit fluctuations between participating currencies by pegging them to a central rate grid derived from the newly created (ECU). The ECU, introduced on March 13, 1979, served as a weighted basket of currencies from EMS members, functioning as a rather than a circulating currency, to provide a stable reference for exchange rate alignments without favoring any single national money. The ERM officially commenced operations on March 13, 1979, involving eight initial participants: , , , , , , , and the . These countries committed to maintaining their currencies within narrow fluctuation bands around bilateral central rates—typically ±2.25% for most pairs, with Italy granted a wider ±6% margin to accommodate its higher inflation differentials. The participated in the broader framework but opted out of the ERM to preserve flexibility for the , which continued to float freely. , having joined the European Community in 1981, did not enter the ERM until later. Central to the ERM's establishment was a system of obligatory interventions in foreign exchange markets when currencies approached their band limits, supported by very short-term financing facilities among central banks to discourage speculative pressures. This mechanism built on lessons from the snake's asymmetric adjustment burdens, where stronger currencies like the dominated, by emphasizing multilateral surveillance and consultations via the Monetary Committee to address underlying economic divergences. The ECU's role extended to denominating credits and settlements, reinforcing discipline without immediate monetary union, though early operations revealed tensions, as the ECU's value closely tracked the due to Germany's economic weight.

Core Goals and Economic Rationale

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), launched on March 13, 1979, as the central component of the (EMS), sought primarily to limit fluctuations in exchange rates among participating currencies of European Community member states and to establish a zone of monetary stability. Each currency maintained a central parity against the (ECU), a weighted basket of participating currencies, within narrow fluctuation bands—typically ±2.25%, though some entrants negotiated wider ±6% margins to accommodate initial divergences. The mechanism's goals extended to internal stability (convergence of and interest rates among members) and external stability (shielding the bloc from global volatility), thereby supporting coordinated economic policies without immediate full monetary union. Economically, the ERM's rationale derived from the post-Bretton Woods era's floating rates, which had amplified and hindered intra-European trade by introducing exchange risk premiums and hedging costs. Pegging currencies imposed market-enforced discipline, particularly on high-inflation economies like and , by tethering them to the low-inflation and the Bundesbank's credibility, compelling restraint to defend parities against speculative pressures. This anchoring effect empirically reduced average intra-ERM to levels below those in floating periods and narrowed differentials, with participating countries' rates dropping from double digits in 1979-1980 to 2-4% by 1988, fostering trade growth as uncertainty diminished. The adjustable design allowed realignments for imbalances, but prioritized through obligatory interventions, aiming to align policies causally with prerequisites. In essence, the ERM embodied a pragmatic intermediate between floating flexibility and irreversible , rationalized by the benefits of reduced nominal rigidities for real while mitigating asymmetric shocks via occasional shifts. By linking monetary to exchange commitments, it incentivized fiscal prudence and low as preconditions for , though success hinged on the anchor currency's dominance, revealing inherent tensions in divergent growth paths.

Operational Framework

Currency Pegs, Bands, and the ECU

The ERM established fixed but adjustable pegs for participating currencies against one another, with central rates expressed directly in terms of the to derive a grid of bilateral central rates. These central rates formed the anchor for stability, requiring central banks to intervene if rates approached the margins of fluctuation. Fluctuation bands permitted controlled variability around the bilateral central rates, with the standard margin set at ±2.25 percent to balance stability and adjustment to economic shocks. Certain currencies, including the and later entrants like the and the British pound, were granted wider bands of ±6 percent to accommodate higher differentials or transitional economies. These bands were monitored via divergence indicators, which measured deviations from the ECU central rate, signaling potential pressures before margins were breached. The functioned as the system's numéraire, a composite comprising fixed quantities of participating currencies weighted by economic size and trade shares, such as a dominant share for the . Established under the 1978 Brussels resolution, the ECU's basket composition ensured it was not overly influenced by any single currency, providing a diversified reference for definitions and realignments. Its daily value, calculated from market exchange rates, underpinned the ERM's operational framework until superseded by the in 1999 at a 1:1 ratio. Central rates against the ECU could be adjusted through concerted action among participants, allowing pegs to adapt to persistent imbalances without immediate crisis.

Intervention Mechanisms and Policy Coordination

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), established on 13 March 1979 as part of the (EMS), required participating s to intervene in foreign exchange markets when their currencies reached specified fluctuation margins against the (ECU). Central rates were fixed bilaterally against the ECU, with standard bands of ±2.25 percent, though wider margins of ±6 percent applied initially to currencies like the and . Upon a currency hitting the upper or lower intervention point, the issuing and its counterparts were obligated to undertake unlimited purchases or sales, primarily in other ERM participants' currencies rather than third-party ones like the U.S. dollar, to foster interdependence and avoid sterilized operations that could undermine adjustment pressures. A divergence indicator, triggered at 75 percent of the maximum allowable deviation from central rates, prompted consultations among central banks to assess whether interventions, domestic monetary tightening, or realignments were needed, though it lacked binding enforcement. Interventions occurred frequently, with central banks coordinating via daily telephone conferences to execute trades and monitor pressures. The Basel-Nyborg Agreement of September 1987 enhanced these mechanisms by formalizing support for intra-marginal interventions—pre-emptive actions before margins were breached—to preempt crises, and introduced multiple-rate financing options where creditors could opt for settlement in ECUs or third currencies if policy disagreements arose, thereby reducing friction but preserving incentives for convergence. Financing for interventions was provided through the Very Short-Term Financing Facility (VSTFF), a credit mechanism among ERM central banks offering automatic, unlimited access for compulsory margin interventions, initially limited to 75 hours but extendable following bilateral consultations. Post-Basel-Nyborg, the VSTFF extended to intra-marginal operations, with total credits outstanding reaching significant volumes during pressures, such as 40 billion in 1992. Supplementary facilities included the Medium-Term Financial Assistance for balance-of-payments support, though these required majority approval and were less automatic. Policy coordination underpinned the ERM's sustainability, emphasizing monetary alignment over fiscal , with the Deutsche Bundesbank's anti-inflationary stance serving as a anchor that compelled other members to adjust interest rates and growth toward German levels, evidenced by declining differentials from over 10 percentage points in 1980 to under 2 by 1990. Institutional bodies facilitated this: the Committee of Central Bank Governors convened monthly to review policies and divergences, while the Monetary Committee and handled broader consultations, including realignments, which occurred 12 times between 1979 and 1987. Despite asymmetries—where weaker-currency countries bore most adjustment burdens—the promoted credible commitment to stability, though interventions alone proved insufficient without policy discipline, as seen in the 1992-1993 crises.

Historical Phases

Initial Stability Period (1979-1980s)

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), launched on 13 March 1979 as part of the (EMS), initially involved eight members: , , , , , , , and the , with the opting out of the exchange rate commitments. Participating currencies were pegged to central rates defined against the (ECU), a weighted by national GDP and trade shares, with standard fluctuation margins of ±2.25% around bilateral parities; received a wider ±6% band to accommodate its higher . Central banks were required to intervene unlimitedly in ECU or partner currencies when margins were breached, supported by very short-term credit facilities up to 2 million ECU per currency pair. During 1979–1987, the ERM achieved greater exchange rate stability than the fragmented "snake" arrangement of the early or the post-Bretton Woods floating era, with intra-EMS nominal effective exchange rate variability declining markedly post-. Statistical evidence shows reduced short-term in bilateral rates among core participants like the , , and , attributed to coordinated interventions and the de facto anchoring role of the low-inflation . Inflation differentials narrowed from an average of 7 percentage points in to under 3 by 1987, reflecting increased monetary discipline as weaker-currency countries aligned policies to defend pegs. This period featured 11 realignments of central rates, primarily devaluations of higher-inflation currencies such as the (twice in 1981–1983) and , enabling absorption of asymmetric shocks without systemic breakdown. Capital controls in peripheral economies, including until their liberalization in 1986 and persistent restrictions in , mitigated speculative pressures and reduced intervention burdens on strong-currency central banks. Interest rate convergence also advanced, with short-term differentials against falling from over 5% in 1981 to near parity by 1987 for most members, underscoring the mechanism's role in fostering policy coordination amid divergent fiscal stances. Despite these gains, the system's —favoring German monetary primacy—imposed adjustment costs on deficit countries through recessions rather than symmetric revaluations of the .

Crises and Breakdown (1990-1993)

The crises in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) from 1990 to 1993 stemmed primarily from asymmetric economic shocks following in October 1990, which imposed divergent requirements across member states. Reunification entailed massive fiscal transfers to the former , estimated at over 1 trillion s in the early , fueling inflationary pressures and prompting the Bundesbank to raise interest rates sharply—to peaks above 8% by late 1992—to maintain . Other ERM participants, facing slower growth or recessions, required lower rates to stimulate their economies but were constrained by the need to defend currency pegs against the , leading to overvalued exchange rates and unsustainable deficits in countries like the , , and . This policy asymmetry exposed the ERM's vulnerability to capital mobility and speculative pressures, as fixed bands (±2.25% for most currencies against the ) lacked sufficient in fundamentals such as differentials, which averaged 2-3% higher in peripheral states than in during 1990-1992. Tensions escalated in 1992 amid a global slowdown and a weak U.S. , amplifying downward pressures on European currencies. Speculative attacks targeted high- currencies first: the and faced heavy selling in July, prompting interventions and a 5% peseta on September 14 within widened temporary bands. suspended its ERM peg on September 16 after depleting reserves, while and floated their currencies earlier in the year due to similar strains. The crisis peaked on September 16, 1992—known as —when the British pound sterling came under relentless assault; the raised rates from 10% to 12% (briefly promising 15%) and expended approximately £3.3 billion in foreign reserves defending the peg before suspending membership that evening. followed suit the next day, withdrawing the after coordinated interventions failed amid domestic political instability and a exceeding 10% of GDP. The September 1992 events marked the effective breakdown of the ERM's narrow-band discipline, with the pound depreciating 15% against the within weeks and the lira by over 20%. These exits highlighted the mechanism's rigidity, as peripheral economies could not endure the recessionary costs of aligning with German monetary tightness—UK GDP contracted 1.1% in 1992—without fiscal flexibility or independent policy tools. Pressures persisted into 1993, culminating in attacks on the and in July, forcing emergency support totaling billions in ECU credits. On August 2, 1993, ERM ministers agreed to widen fluctuation bands to ±15% for all currencies except the bilateral - parity (retained at ±2.25%), effectively transforming the system into a looser arrangement that reduced speculative incentives but undermined credibility ahead of European Monetary Union preparations. Empirical analyses attribute the crises to fundamental disequilibria rather than mere ; for instance, real misalignments exceeded 20% for the and by mid-1992, rendering defense untenable without . The Bundesbank's prioritized domestic over ERM symmetry, illustrating the of fixed rates, , and policy autonomy. While short-term costs included reserve losses and output gaps, the post-crisis depreciations facilitated recovery—UK growth rebounded to 4% in 1994—underscoring the ERM's role in enforcing discipline at the expense of adjustment flexibility.

Shift to ERM II (1999 Onward)

ERM II was established on 1 January 1999, concurrent with the launch of the third stage of (), marking the irrevocable conversion of participating national currencies to the and the replacement of the original European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM I) under the (). This transition shifted the anchor from the to the itself, with non-participating EU Member States' currencies maintaining central rates against the within a standard fluctuation band of ±15 percent, a wider margin than the typical ±2.25 percent bands of ERM I, to accommodate greater economic divergence and reduce vulnerability to speculative attacks experienced in the 1992–1993 crises. The framework originated from the European Council Resolution of 16 June 1997, which emphasized voluntary participation, mutual agreement on central rates by the (ECB), the , and relevant Member States, and coordinated interventions only if needed to defend bands, diverging from ERM I's stronger obligatory intervention commitments that had strained reserves during prior breakdowns. entered as the initial and sole participant, opting for a narrower ±2.25 percent band around its central rate of 7.46038 Danish kroner per euro, consistent with its protocol exempting it from euro adoption while preserving monetary policy alignment. From inception, ERM II functioned as a tool for the internal market and a convergence criterion for accession, mandating at least two years of membership without central rate to satisfy the requirement of the . Greece acceded in March 2001 ahead of its 2002 entry, followed by post-2004 enlargement countries including and (both 2004), (2005), , , and (all 2005), and Slovenia (2007); several of these graduated to the upon meeting criteria, with fixed conversion rates derived from ERM II central parities. , the (until ), and others declined participation, underscoring ERM II's optional nature and limited scope compared to ERM I's broader integration. Subsequent adjustments, including a 2006 agreement updating operational rules and narrower bands for specific entrants, reinforced flexibility; Bulgaria and Croatia joined on 10 July 2020 with unilateral currency board arrangements, the latter adopting the euro on 1 January 2023 after fulfilling the two-year stability period. Unlike ERM I, which collapsed under asymmetric shocks and policy rigidities, ERM II's design prioritizes pre-euro convergence through sound fiscal and monetary policies, with ECB consultations on realignments to avoid forced defenses, though participation has remained sparse, involving only Denmark and Bulgaria as of 2023.

ERM II Mechanics and Participation

Key Differences from Original ERM

ERM II, introduced on January 1, 1999, alongside the euro's launch, incorporates modifications to address vulnerabilities exposed by ERM I's crises, particularly the 1992-1993 speculative attacks that prompted wider fluctuation bands and questioned rigid peg commitments. Unlike ERM I, which defined bilateral central rates via the —a composite basket reflecting currencies—ERM II establishes unilateral central rates against the as the sole anchor, simplifying the framework post-monetary union. This shift eliminates the need for multi-currency adjustments inherent in the ECU system. Fluctuation margins under ERM II default to ±15 percent around central rates, mirroring the post-1993 widening in ERM I but applied asymmetrically from inception, with options for narrower bands negotiated bilaterally (e.g., Denmark's ±2.25 percent since 1999). Interventions in ERM II are encouraged at band edges but lack ERM I's presumption of unlimited obligation; the ECB retains discretion to suspend or limit them if they jeopardize euro area or transmission. Realignments of central rates are explicitly facilitated in ERM II for prompt adaptation to fundamental disequilibria, contrasting ERM I's aversion to frequent adjustments that often delayed responses and amplified pressures. ERM II's scope is narrower, targeting non-euro EU members as a mandatory preparatory phase for euro adoption under the Maastricht convergence criteria, whereas ERM I encompassed broader EMS stability without explicit linkage to irreversible union. These changes prioritize sustainability over symmetry, with eurozone central banks holding no intervention duty toward ERM II currencies.
AspectERM I (1979-1998)ERM II (1999-present)
Central Rate AnchorECU (basket of EMS currencies) (single currency)
Standard Bands±2.25% (widened to ±15% post-1993 crisis)±15% (narrower optional, e.g., ±2.25%)
Intervention RuleUnlimited commitment among participantsConditional; ECB may suspend for policy reasons
Realignment PolicyPolitically constrained, infrequentExplicitly speedy and fundamentals-based
Primary ObjectiveIntra-EMS exchange stabilityEuro convergence preparatory stage

Membership Criteria and Fluctuation Bands

Membership in ERM II requires agreement among the finance ministers of euro area Member States, the (ECB), and the finance minister and central bank governor of the candidate non-euro EU Member State. Entry is voluntary but mandatory for countries intending to adopt the , with participation typically lasting at least two years to satisfy the stability convergence criterion under the . Candidates must demonstrate sustainable levels without severe tensions, pursue economic policies compatible with those of the area, and avoid unilateral of the central rate against the during membership. The ECB assesses these conditions, emphasizing credible monetary frameworks and fiscal discipline to prevent speculative pressures observed in the original ERM. Upon entry, a bilateral central rate is established for the candidate's currency against the , reflecting prevailing market conditions and agreed upon by the parties involved. This rate serves as the anchor for stability and can be adjusted through multilateral consultations if fundamental economic imbalances arise, though such realignments are rare and require consensus to maintain credibility. The central rate determination process prioritizes rates that support long-term without artificial distortions, often informed by recent bilateral averages against the . Fluctuation bands are defined around the central rate, with the standard width set at ±15% to allow flexibility while promoting . Participating central banks may unilaterally adopt narrower bands, imposing stricter self-discipline without additional obligations on euro area partners, as seen in Denmark's maintenance of a ±2.25% band since ERM II's inception on , 1999. For convergence assessments, adherence to the agreed band—regardless of width—must occur without realignments or tensions, though wider bands do not preclude fulfillment of the if is maintained. Interventions at band margins are obligatory to defend the , supported by very short-term financing facilities from the ECB and other central banks.

Current Participants and Adoption Pathways

Denmark maintains participation in ERM II under a special granting it an from adoption, as agreed in the 1992 Edinburgh European Council conclusions, with its pegged to the at a central rate of 7.46038 Danish kroner per and a narrow fluctuation band of ±2.25%. joined the original ERM in 1979 and transitioned seamlessly to ERM II upon the 's launch on January 1, 1999, committing to unlimited if the band is breached. This arrangement supports autonomy while aligning with exchange rate stability goals, though rejected membership in referendums in 2000 (53.2% against) and has no plans for a third vote. Bulgaria entered ERM II on July 10, 2020, establishing a central rate of 1.95583 per within the standard ±15% fluctuation band, building on its unilateral regime pegged to the since 1997. The country has maintained stability without realignments, fulfilling the two-year minimum participation requirement as of July 2022, alongside meeting other convergence criteria, paving the way for adoption on January 1, 2026, as approved by the EU Council on July 8, 2025. Upon entry, will exit ERM II, leaving as the sole participant. Adoption pathways for other EU Member States outside the euro area involve voluntary entry into ERM II as a prerequisite for euro accession, requiring at least two years of stable participation without devaluation of the central rate, as stipulated in Article 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Prospective members must negotiate central parities and fluctuation bands—typically ±15% unless narrower bands are agreed—with input from the European Commission, ECB, and euro area governments to ensure compatibility with the euro's monetary policy. This phase tests resilience against speculative pressures and aligns national policies with Economic and Monetary Union obligations, including banking union integration; however, countries like Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, and Romania have delayed or avoided formal ERM II entry, often citing insufficient convergence or preference for flexible exchange rates to manage domestic shocks. Romania, for instance, targets ERM II accession around 2029 to support euro adoption by 2030, contingent on fiscal reforms. Non-participation does not preclude eventual euro entry if bilateral agreements substitute for ERM II stability, though this remains untested and politically contentious.

Economic Outcomes and Evaluations

Achievements in Reducing Volatility and Inflation

The ERM, launched on March 13, 1979, as part of the , substantially lowered intra-member volatility compared to the preceding Bretton Woods collapse period. Empirical studies document a marked decline in both nominal and real variability within the ERM, with bilateral fluctuations against the ECU and among members showing statistically significant reductions post-1979. This outcome stemmed from mandatory interventions to defend ±2.25% fluctuation bands (wider for some currencies like the at ±6%), which enforced discipline and reduced short-term speculative pressures relative to floating regimes. Nonparametric analyses confirm this stabilizing shift was more pronounced for ERM participants than non-members, particularly in the phase before realignments. On , the ERM promoted by linking high- currencies to the Deutsche Mark's , compelling members to align monetary policies and curb excessive growth. Inflation rates among ERM countries displayed strong positive correlations in the , contrasting with greater dispersion in the , as narrow money growth decelerated by 4-5 percentage points on average from 1979 to 1984. This discipline effect accelerated , narrowing differentials with Germany's low- benchmark; for instance, countries like and saw headline inflation drop from double-digit averages in the late to around 3-5% by the late through parity defense and fiscal restraint. The mechanism's role as a nominal anchor thus fostered , aiding preparatory for the without relying solely on domestic autonomy. These achievements were most evident in the 1979-1990 period, where coordinated interventions and the "German dominance" dynamic transmitted anti-inflationary impulses across borders, though sustainability depended on credible commitment amid asymmetric shocks. Overall, the ERM's framework empirically validated fixed-but-adjustable rates in lowering volatility and embedding inflation control, contrasting with higher variability under pure floats.

Criticisms of Rigidity and Sovereign Costs

The rigidity inherent in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism's narrow fluctuation bands—initially ±2.25% around central parities—severely constrained monetary authorities' ability to respond to asymmetric economic shocks, forcing participating countries to either defend unsustainable rates through exorbitant interest hikes or face devaluation pressures. This structural inflexibility manifested acutely during the 1992-1993 ERM crisis, precipitated by divergent inflation paths and the Bundesbank's tight policy response to , which elevated interest rates in Germany while peripheral economies like the and grappled with overvalued currencies and widening deficits. Without realignments since 1987, despite evident misalignments, governments resorted to aggressive defenses, such as the raising its base rate from 10% to 12% and then to 15% on September 16, 1992, amid speculative attacks that depleted approximately $22.6 billion in foreign reserves before the UK's forced exit from the mechanism. Such defenses imposed substantial sovereign costs, including deepened recessions from contractionary policies that prioritized parity maintenance over domestic output stabilization, as high interest rates stifled and in economies already facing fiscal strains. In the UK's case, the crisis not only eroded fiscal buffers through reserve losses equivalent to billions in public funds but also undermined credibility, contributing to a subsequent economic contraction where GDP fell by 1.1% in 1992 before partial recovery post-float. Italy similarly incurred heavy intervention costs and policy reversals, exiting the ERM and devaluing the by 20% in September 1992, highlighting how rigidity transferred adjustment burdens onto sovereign balance sheets and taxpayers rather than allowing market-driven corrections. Under ERM II, introduced in 1999 with wider ±15% bands to ostensibly enhance flexibility, criticisms persist regarding residual rigidity that curtails monetary independence, compelling participants like and to shadow ECB policy and forgo tailored responses to idiosyncratic shocks, such as surges or localized downturns. This loss of sovereign monetary autonomy necessitates compensatory adjustments in labor and product markets—evidenced by requirements for heightened and flexibility in acceding states—to mitigate output , yet empirical analyses indicate fixed pegs amplify risks compared to floating regimes, as seen in heightened vulnerability to speculative pressures without the full integration buffers of membership. Sovereign costs here include foregone from independent issuance and elevated fiscal pressures during defenses, where countries must align budgets with euro-area norms, potentially exacerbating dynamics in divergent cycles.

Empirical Evidence on Convergence and Growth Impacts

Participation in the original European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) from to 1993 facilitated nominal , particularly in and rates, as evidenced by econometric tests showing reduced and with the anchor. Studies applying analysis to EU countries under different regimes found stronger evidence of long-run in nominal variables during ERM periods compared to pre-ERM floating, with differentials narrowing from an average of 6-7 percentage points in the early 1980s to below 2 points by the late 1980s among core members. This stability stemmed from credible commitments to fixed parities, which disciplined monetary policies and lowered nominal rate premia, though widened fluctuation bands post-1993 (to ±15%) allowed greater flexibility without fully undermining . Real , proxied by GDP per capita gaps, exhibited weaker and less directly attributable effects from ERM participation. analyses of euro area precursors indicate that while nominal anchors supported , real output relied more on productivity-enhancing reforms and than exchange rate pegs alone; for instance, peripheral ERM members like and saw temporary GDP growth accelerations in the mid-1980s linked to capital inflows under fixed rates, but persistent structural divergences reemerged post-crises. Cross-country regressions on fixed versus flexible regimes in highlight that ERM-era pegs correlated with short-term growth boosts via reduced transaction costs and efficient capital allocation, averaging 0.5-1% higher annual GDP growth in participating economies during stable phases, yet asymmetric shocks amplified output volatility during speculative pressures. Under ERM II, introduced in 1999, empirical evidence from Central and Eastern European entrants (e.g., in 2004, in 2005) points to accelerated nominal , with rates aligning closer to euro area averages within 2-3 years of entry, facilitated by ±15% fluctuation bands and central rate commitments. Regime-shift tests confirm structural breaks in macroeconomic volatility post-ERM II accession, including sustained disinflation and gross financial inflows peaking at approximately 30% of GDP three years after joining, which bolstered and growth rates by 1-2 percentage points annually in early phases. However, long-term growth impacts remain debated; while fixed pegs under ERM II reduced exchange rate uncertainty and supported export competitiveness in high-skill sectors, panel studies across non-euro EU states find no robust outperformance in real GDP relative to flexible-rate peers like , where yielded comparable stability without rigidity costs. Critics note potential growth drags from elevated real interest rates during (often 4-6 points above euro area levels) to defend pegs against appreciation pressures, echoing original ERM tensions. Overall, evidence underscores ERM's role in nominal discipline but highlights limits in fostering sustained real growth amid heterogeneous shocks, with benefits contingent on complementary fiscal and structural policies.

Controversies and Debates

Speculative Attacks and Policy Mismatches

The 1992–1993 crisis in the original European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) exemplified how speculative attacks could exploit underlying policy mismatches among member states. Following in 1990, the Bundesbank pursued tight , raising interest rates to curb inflationary pressures from fiscal transfers to , with the reaching 8.75% by mid-1992. This stance strengthened the but imposed asymmetric burdens on other ERM currencies, particularly those in recessionary economies like the and , where lower interest rates were needed to stimulate growth amid slowing GDP (UK growth fell to -0.4% in 1991). The fixed exchange rate bands, initially narrow at ±2.25% for most participants, became unsustainable as peripheral currencies depreciated under pressure, revealing a lack of coordinated fiscal-monetary adjustment mechanisms. Speculative pressures intensified in September 1992, culminating in "" on 16 September, when the withdrew the from the ERM after failing to defend its central parity against the despite a brief hike in base rates to 15%. The was devalued by 7% the same day and suspended from the mechanism, with attacks driven by large short positions from hedge funds, including George Soros's Quantum Fund, which profited approximately $1 billion from betting against the pound. Contagion spread, affecting the (devalued twice in 1992–1993), (floated after reserve losses exceeding $20 billion), and others, as markets anticipated further realignments amid divergent paths—Germany's at 4.7% versus the UK's 5.9% in 1992—and fiscal deficits exceeding precursors in several cases. Empirical analyses confirm these attacks were rooted in fundamental imbalances, such as overvalued exchange rates (e.g., the pound overvalued by 10–15% against fundamentals) and inconsistent national policies, rather than purely self-fulfilling prophecies, though capital mobility post-1980s liberalization amplified the speed of adjustment. In response, ERM bands were widened to ±15% in August 1993, effectively transforming the system into a looser that reduced immediate incentives but highlighted the original mechanism's vulnerability to asymmetric shocks without a common monetary authority. Policy mismatches arose from the "" of fixed rates, capital mobility, and independent national monetary policies; Germany's prioritization of domestic stability over symmetry exacerbated tensions, as Bundesbank independence precluded accommodation of partners' needs. Critics, including some economists, argued that merely accelerated inevitable corrections, with pre-crisis data showing unsustainable deficits (e.g., UK's at 3.7% of GDP in 1990) and rising unit labor costs in states relative to . ERM II, introduced in 1999 as a precursor to euro adoption, incorporated lessons from these events by mandating stricter convergence criteria under the —limiting to 1.5% above the three best performers, deficits to 3% of GDP, and to 60%—to align policies ex ante and minimize mismatches. Participants like (joined 1999, ±2.25% band) and (joined July 2020, ±5% initially narrowing to ±2.25% by 2021) have faced no successful speculative attacks, supported by unlimited ECB intervention financing and closer ECB policy synchronization, though experienced mild pressures in 2022 amid shocks and differentials (peaking at 18.6% versus eurozone's 8.4%). Debates persist on whether ERM II's design fully resolves risks, as opt-outs (e.g., 's) allow national deviations that could invite future tests if global shocks diverge national cycles from the area, underscoring that fixed regimes require credible commitment to fundamentals over discretionary policy.

Sovereignty versus Integration Trade-offs

Participation in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) required member states to maintain their currencies within predefined fluctuation bands relative to the European Currency Unit (ECU), compelling national central banks to prioritize exchange rate defense over domestic economic stabilization, thereby eroding monetary sovereignty. This constraint manifested acutely during the 1992-1993 crises, when divergent economic conditions—such as Germany's high interest rates post-reunification—forced peripheral members like the United Kingdom and Italy to sustain unsustainably high borrowing costs to uphold parities, culminating in speculative attacks that depleted reserves and prompted suspensions of membership on September 16, 1992, for the pound sterling. Exiting the mechanism restored policy autonomy, enabling devaluation and interest rate cuts that facilitated recovery, as evidenced by the UK's subsequent shift to inflation targeting and avoidance of deflationary pressures that plagued continuing members. In ERM II, established in 1999 as a precursor to euro adoption, non-euro EU members commit to central rates against the with standard ±15% fluctuation bands, though narrower unilateral margins like Denmark's ±2.25% impose de facto shadowing of (ECB) policy, limiting independent responses to asymmetric shocks such as housing bubbles or fiscal divergences. , participating since January 1, 1999, under its opt-out, has maintained this tight peg to ensure and trade compatibility with the —its largest partner—but at the expense of revenues foregone and inability to devalue during downturns, as demonstrated by aligned interest rates with the ECB throughout the 2008-2012 sovereign debt crisis despite domestic banking strains. Empirical analyses indicate that such arrangements reduce volatility and inflation differentials, fostering for adopters, yet they amplify output losses in non-synchronized cycles absent fiscal transfers, underscoring the causal where integration's credibility gains clash with sovereignty's flexibility for shock absorption. Critics, drawing from Mundell-Fleming trilemma principles, argue that ERM's fixed-rate discipline without full invites policy mismatches, as seen in Sweden's deliberate non-participation since 1999, which preserved krona flotation for countercyclical easing—yielding lower variance post-2008 compared to pegged peers—while integration advocates cite Denmark's sustained low (averaging 1.5% annually from 1999-2023) as validation of benefits outweighing costs. This tension persists, with ERM II realignments rare (only adjusted upward in 2007 before entry), reflecting enforced convergence that bolsters cohesion but risks sovereign overreach, particularly for economies with structural divergences from the core.

Lessons for Fixed versus Flexible Exchange Regimes

The European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) provided empirical insights into the trade-offs between fixed and flexible regimes, particularly through its phases of narrow-band pegs in ERM I (1979–1993) and wider fluctuation bands in ERM II (from 1999). Fixed regimes under ERM I enforced monetary discipline, leading to in rates among participants; for instance, average in ERM countries fell from over 10% in the early 1980s to around 3% by 1990, compared to higher and more volatile rates in non-participants like the prior to its 1990 entry. This stability reduced volatility and facilitated , with intra-ERM growth outpacing non-ERM by approximately 20% annually in the late 1980s. However, these gains relied on aligned macroeconomic fundamentals, as fixed pegs transmitted Bundesbank policy rigidly across members, limiting national responses to asymmetric shocks such as the post-reunification fiscal expansion in . The 1992–1993 ERM crisis underscored the fragility of fixed pegs under policy divergence, as speculative pressures forced devaluations or exits for currencies like the British pound and on September 16, 1992 (), despite interventions costing the UK over £3.3 billion in reserves. High German interest rates (up to 8.3% by late 1992) to combat reunification-induced clashed with recessionary pressures elsewhere, rendering defense unsustainable without fiscal adjustments; empirical analysis shows that countries maintaining pegs faced deeper output contractions (e.g., -1.5% GDP in vs. post-exit recovery in the UK). This highlighted a core lesson: fixed regimes amplify credibility for low- environments but invite crises when fundamentals misalign, as pegged currencies become targets for one-way bets, with attack probabilities rising 5–10 times during divergence episodes per event studies. In contrast, flexible regimes post-ERM exits allowed monetary autonomy, enabling the to cut rates to 6% by 1993 and pursue , which correlated with faster GDP recovery (2.5% growth in 1994 vs. 1.8% EU average) and avoidance of prolonged deflationary traps. ERM II's adoption of ±15% fluctuation bands for non-euro participants like reflects a lesson, blending fixed anchors for with flexibility to absorb shocks, reducing crisis incidence compared to ERM I's ±2.25% bands; data indicate ERM II members experienced 30% lower volatility than pure floaters while maintaining below 2.5% on average since 2000. Overall, ERM evidence supports fixed regimes for economies with strong institutions and symmetric cycles aiming for monetary union, but favors flexible or managed floats for heterogeneous shocks, where adjustment via exchange rates preserves output stability over rigid defense costs.

References

  1. [1]
    The European exchange rate mechanism (ERM II) as a preparatory ...
    2.1 History. With the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999, ERM II replaced the original exchange rate mechanism, which was one of the components of the ...
  2. [2]
    Glossary:European Monetary System (EMS) - Statistics Explained
    The European Monetary System, abbreviated as EMS, was an exchange rate regime set up in 1979 (and which ended in 1999) to foster closer monetary policy ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  3. [3]
    ERM II – the EU's Exchange Rate Mechanism - Economy and Finance
    Jul 10, 2020 · The Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) was set up on 1 January 1999 as a successor to ERM to ensure that exchange rate fluctuations between the ...How does ERM II work? · measure of sustainable... · Joining ERM IIMissing: history | Show results with:history
  4. [4]
    [PDF] History of European Monetary Integration
    In June 1997, the European Council adopted a Resolution to set up an exchange rate mechanism after the creation of the euro area in 1999. This mechanism, called ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] The Making of the European Monetary Union: 30 years since the ...
    The early years of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) featured frequent realignments in the face of divergent macro policies. These were disruptive ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Was the ERM Crisis Inevitable?
    The ERM crisis was caused by policy divergence, bad luck, and the system's vulnerability, but not necessarily inevitable. Some view the system as fundamentally ...
  7. [7]
    The trauma of the European currency crises in the 1990s ... - CEPR
    Feb 20, 2023 · Thirty years ago, in September 1992, the European monetary system (the Exchange Rate Mechanism, or ERM, as it was then called) suffered a major ...
  8. [8]
    Introduction - IMF eLibrary
    The European Monetary System (EMS) came into operation in March 1979, in accordance with the. Resolution of December 5, 1978 of the European.
  9. [9]
    I Introduction in: The European Monetary System in ... - IMF eLibrary
    In 1979 the European Monetary System (EMS) was established to create a “zone of monetary stability” within the European Community (EC).Missing: details | Show results with:details
  10. [10]
    Glossary:European currency unit (ECU) - Statistics Explained
    The European currency unit, abbreviated as ECU, was the former currency unit of the European Communities, from its adoption on 13 March 1979.Missing: ERM establishment
  11. [11]
    The creation of the EMS - Historical events in the European ...
    On 13 March 1979, the EMS was born. The United Kingdom did not join the EMS exchange rate mechanism so as to allow the pound sterling to continue to float.
  12. [12]
    What Was the European Monetary System (EMS)? - Investopedia
    The European Monetary System (EMS) was set up in 1979 to foster closer monetary policy co-operation between members of the European Community (EC).What Was the EMS? · Understanding the EMS · History · Criticism
  13. [13]
    [PDF] The exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system
    The ERM aims to promote monetary stability in Europe, with currencies having central parities against the ECU, and fluctuation margins around these parities.
  14. [14]
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Exchange Rate Variability and EU Trade - European Commission
    One objective of this system was to foster international exchanges of goods and services. In 1973, the Bretton Woods system was abandoned and many countries ...
  16. [16]
    5 The ERM Experience in: Frameworks for Monetary Stability
    Its goal was to create a “zone of monetary stability in Europe.” Each EMS currency was given a central exchange rate in terms of domestic currency per European ...Evolution Of The Erm · Disinflation In The Erm · Systemic Issues
  17. [17]
    I. Introduction and Background in: The European Monetary System
    At the heart of the EMS is a system of fixed but adjustable exchange rates. Each currency has a central rate expressed in terms of the European Currency Unit ( ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Resolution of the Brussels European Council on the establishment ...
    Dec 20, 2013 · These central rates will be used to establish a grid of bilateral exchange rates. Around these exchange rates fluctuation margins of ±2.25 % ...
  19. [19]
    4 ECU as Unit of Account in: Legal Effects of Fluctuating Exchange ...
    The ECU is a composite of fixed amounts of EC member state currencies, used as a unit of account, and is central to the EMS.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] XX Institutional Structure and Historical Development of the EMS
    7 At these margins, participating central banks are obliged to intervene in unlimited amounts. In principle, intervention is to take place in ERM currencies, ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2005
    Under ERM I, in particular after the Basel/Nyborg. Agreement in 1987, intramarginal interventions gained a lot of practical impor- tance and were heavily ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] International Finance Discussion Papers - Federal Reserve Board
    The very short-term financing facility (VSTF) established in 1979 is for the financing of obligatory interventions. Access to this facility is automatic and ...
  23. [23]
    I Introduction in: EUropean Monetary System - IMF eLibrary
    During this phase, the EMS indeed resembled the snake. During those early years the ECU (European currency unit) failed to gain the importance that had been ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] THE EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM: CREDIBLE AT LAST?
    Apr 26, 2023 · The exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System (EMS) began in 1979 as an arrangement among eight European countries to limit ...
  25. [25]
    The Stabilizing Effect of the ERMon Exchange Rates and Interest ...
    Aug 1, 1993 · The European Monetary System (EMS) was instituted in March 1979, largely as a reaction to the volatility of exchange rates among European ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] The european monetary system 1979–1987: Why has it worked?
    The relative stability of exchange rates in the EMS can be explained by the existence of capital controls in countries with weak currencies and by the weakness ...
  27. [27]
    The European monetary system: A Note - ScienceDirect.com
    This paper investigates the performance of the EMS since its implementationin 1979. The statistical results suggest that there has been a significant decrease ...Missing: Mechanism | Show results with:Mechanism<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    III Performance of the EMS, 1979–87 in - IMF eLibrary
    The study concludes that the EMS has brought about a significant increase in convergence and greater exchange rate stability among its members and that “it does ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] INTERPRETING THE ERM CRISIS: COUNTRY-SPECIFIC AND ...
    The ERM crisis in 1992-93 was a critical event due to speculative flows, exposing the fragility of the EMS and shaking monetary union.<|control11|><|separator|>
  30. [30]
    The birth of inflation targeting: why did the ERM crisis happen?
    Nov 8, 2022 · In September 1992, the UK was forced to withdraw from the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System, as it was unable to keep the value of the ...
  31. [31]
    Treasury papers reveal cost of Black Wednesday - The Guardian
    Feb 9, 2005 · The total cost of the "Black Wednesday" economic debacle of 1992 may only have been £3.3bn, rather than the £13-27bn previously estimated.
  32. [32]
    Annex VI: The ERM Crisis of September 1992 in - IMF eLibrary
    After the withdrawal of sterling from the ERM on September 16, the French franc came under heavy attack, which initially was met mainly through intervention.Pre-Crisis Cross-Border... · Speculative Attacks and... · Italian Lira · French Franc
  33. [33]
    [PDF] A Comparison of the ERM Crisis in the Early 1990s with Recent ...
    In the early 1990s, the European foreign-exchange market was exposed to strong speculative pressures, during which one currency after the next.
  34. [34]
    Exchange rate mechanism between the euro and other ... - EUR-Lex
    Mar 21, 2023 · It established a stable exchange rate mechanism (ERM II), replacing the original European Monetary System, between the euro and the national ...
  35. [35]
    AMSTERDAM EUROPEAN COUNCIL, 16 and 17 JUNE 1997 ...
    Jun 17, 1997 · II. EUROPEAN COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EXCHANGE-RATE MECHANISM IN THE THIRD STAGE OF ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION. III ...
  36. [36]
    VI Institutional Arrangements for Entering ERM2 and Adopting the ...
    But it differs in a few important respects: (1) fluctuation bands are defined relative to the euro; (2) the ECB has the right to suspend intervention if price ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Operational features of the new European exchange-rate mechanism
    The Greek drachma will participate in ERM II with a fluctuation band of 15% around its central rate against the euro, while a fluctuation band of 21 4 % has ...
  38. [38]
    4 Exchange Rate Arrangements Between the Ins and the Outs in
    This new mechanism will guide the exchange rate relations between the countries inside (the “ins”) and the countries outside the euro area (the “outs”). It will ...
  39. [39]
    What does a country need to do to join the euro area?
    Exchange rate stability is evaluated by assessing whether the exchange rate of the country's currency has remained within the fluctuation bands provided for by ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] Conventions and procedures for the exchange rate mechanism II ...
    For the currency of each Member State participating in the mechanism, a central rate against the euro and a standard fluctuation band of ±15% are defined, in ...
  41. [41]
    Conventions and Procedures for the Exchange Rate Mechanism II ...
    Jun 28, 2004 · For the currency of each Member State participating in the mechanism, a central rate against the euro and a standard fluctuation band of ±15% ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] POLICY POSITION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE ...
    Dec 18, 2003 · ERM II replaced the European. Monetary System that had been created in 1979. Within the framework of ERM II, exchange rate stability is ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
  43. [43]
    Monetary policy glossary - European Central Bank
    The exchange rate arrangement established on 1 January 1999 that provides a framework for exchange rate policy cooperation between the Eurosystem and EU Member ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  44. [44]
    The Bulgarian lev and the Croatian kuna in the exchange rate ...
    ERM II was introduced in 1999 as one of the ways to assess a country's convergence with the euro area. The mechanism has two main purposes. The first is to act ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
  45. [45]
    Convergence criteria - European Central Bank
    ... differences in national definitions.” ... The Treaty refers to the criterion of participation in ERM II (which superseded the ERM in January 1999).
  46. [46]
    Questions regarding fixed exchange rate policy
    The euro is at the core of ERM II, and countries participating in the programme have central rates against the euro, but not against each other's currencies.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
  47. [47]
    Bulgaria to join euro area on 1 January 2026 - European Central Bank
    Jul 8, 2025 · The Council of the European Union formally approved the accession of Bulgaria to the euro area on 1 January 2026 and determined a Bulgarian lev conversion rate ...
  48. [48]
    Bulgaria ready to use the euro from 1 January 2026: Council takes ...
    Jul 8, 2025 · The Council today approved the final three legal acts required for Bulgaria to introduce the euro on 1 January 2026.
  49. [49]
    Exchange rates and interest rates - Statistics Explained - Eurostat
    Non-euro area countries may fix their exchange rates against the euro as part of the exchange rate mechanism (ERM II) in preparation for joining the euro area, ...
  50. [50]
    Euro adoption: After Croatia, who's next? - S&P Global
    May 15, 2023 · We expect the current seven non-eurozone EU countries except Denmark and Sweden to join the currency union between 2026 and 2040.Missing: pathways | Show results with:pathways
  51. [51]
    10 Euro Adoption in the Accession Countries: Vulnerabilities and ...
    Macroeconomic conditions are likely to become more favorable to inflows, especially after a country enters ERM II: prospects for euro adoption will foster ...Missing: pathways | Show results with:pathways
  52. [52]
    IV Variability of Exchange Rates in: The European Monetary System
    The existence of the EMS since 1979 has coincided with a marked reduction in the variability of nominal and real exchange rates within the ERM.
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Discussion Paper No. 31 - Bank of England
    There is strong evidence of reduced intra- ERM exchange rate volatility post-March 1979 , and signs of increased volatility in dollar and ( to a slightly lesser ...<|separator|>
  54. [54]
    [PDF] The Stabilizing Effect of the ERM on Exchange Rates and Interest ...
    Despite these caveats, a number of studies have concentrated on evidence that the EMS has reduced exchange rate volatility, most notably those by Ungerer ...
  55. [55]
    The Effect of the ERM on Participating Economies in - IMF eLibrary
    Jan 1, 1992 · The most striking feature of the data is the high correlation of inflation performance among members of the ERM in the 1980s. The correlations ...
  56. [56]
    V Economie Convergence Among EMS Member Countries in
    In ERM countries, monetary expansion slowed in the 1980s; growth rates for narrow and broad money fell by about 4 to 5 percentage points on average in 1979–84 ...
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Inflation Convergence :ithin the European Union - Cerge-Ei
    The analysis also focuses on whether the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) helped to accelerate inflation convergence in its member countries. The results of this ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Impact of EMS Membership on Its Nominal Exchange Rate Volatility
    The existence of the EMS since 1979 has coincided with a marked reduction in the volatility of exchange rates within the EMS. This was one major goal of the ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Imported or Home Grown? The 1992-3 EMS Crisis
    Bundesbank tipped the balance of costs and benefits of defending ERM ... Black Wednesday saw the Bank of England raise interest rates and expend $22.6 billion in.<|separator|>
  60. [60]
    (PDF) Exchange Rate Mechanism II and the risk of currency crisis
    Currency participation in ERM II is conditional on the introduction of the fixed exchange rate regime. A fixed exchange rate is more at risk from a currency ...<|separator|>
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Employment and Labor Market Flexibility in the New EU Member ...
    The accession to ERM II will already enhance the importance of labor market adjustability, meaning that the labor market will have to be able to absorb possible ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  62. [62]
    (PDF) Exchange Rate Regimes and Economic Convergence in the ...
    Aug 9, 2025 · This paper tests for long-run macroeconomic convergence among European Union countries according to the various exchange rate regimes that have ...
  63. [63]
    9 The Maastricht Criteria on Price and Exchange Rate Stability and ...
    ERM II was established by a European Council Resolution of June 16, 1997, as a successor arrangement to the European Monetary System (EMS). Participation is ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] Real convergence in the euro area: evidence, theory and policy ...
    Real convergence is when lower-income economies' GDP per capita catch up with higher-income economies, measured by relative GDP per capita in purchasing power ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] Exchange rate volatility and growth in small open economies at the ...
    From a short-term perspective, fixed exchange rates can foster economic growth by a more effi- cient international allocation of capital when transaction costs ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Impact of Exchange Rate Regimes on Economic Growth
    Jan 1, 2015 · The main hypothesis of this research is that fixed exchange rate regimes have positive correlation with GDP growth due to the stability factor ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] wiiw Research Report 302: Lessons to be Learnt from the ERM and ...
    Throughout the entire convergence period, the countries resorted to high interest rates. The aim was to compensate investors for the risk of holding currencies ...
  68. [68]
    Exchange Rate Regimes and Macroeconomic Stability in Central ...
    Aug 7, 2025 · In their view, a stable exchange rate reduces price uncertainty and real interest rates volatility by increasing the efficiency of price ...
  69. [69]
    Output divergence in fixed exchange rate regimes - ScienceDirect.com
    Focusing on financial frictions, Aghion et al. (2009) find that exchange rate fluctuations negatively affect economic growth in countries with low financial ...
  70. [70]
    [PDF] How Tying Odysseus to the Mast Avoided the Sirens but Led Him
    The shock triggering the ERM crisis was monetary contraction and demand expansion in Germany.
  71. [71]
    [PDF] The EMS Crisis in Retrospect Barry Eichengreen Working Paper 8035
    This paper reconsiders the 1992-3 crisis in the European Monetary System in light of its emerging market successors. That episode was a predecessor of the ...
  72. [72]
    Contagious speculative attacks - ScienceDirect.com
    During the European exchange market turmoil in 1992–1993 it was evident that speculative attacks tended to spread across currencies.
  73. [73]
    ERM's 1992 crisis offers lessons for today - London Business School
    Nov 1, 2022 · The webinar offered a narrative of the ERM crisis as a watershed in the process of monetary and economic integration in Europe.
  74. [74]
  75. [75]
    Denmark's monetary policy: Permanently halfway to the euro?
    Mar 14, 2024 · However, Danish monetary policy is best defined as a fixed exchange rate regime rather than ERM II membership, as the exchange rate fluctuates ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  76. [76]
    Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM): Definition, Objective, Examples
    An exchange rate mechanism (ERM) is a set of procedures used to manage a country's currency exchange rate relative to other currencies.
  77. [77]
    Denmark and the euro - Economy and Finance - European Union
    The EU Treaty gives Denmark the right to remain outside the euro area, even when all convergence criteria are met (opt-out). The Danish krone joined the ...Missing: trade- offs
  78. [78]
    [PDF] 9 The Maastricht Criteria on Price and Exchange Rate Stability and ...
    As should be clear from the above considerations,. ERM II is first and foremost a tool that should assist member states aiming at euro adoption to consider.
  79. [79]
    Lessons from Europe's experience with exchange rate regimes
    First, they encourage trade, competition and growth. Second, the fixing of exchange rates can lead on to a single currency, which may be both economically and ...<|separator|>
  80. [80]
    Economic Policy and Exchange Rate Regimes: What Have We ...
    Sep 16, 2002 · The 1992-93 ERM crisis was similar to the crises that followed in that macroeconomic and microeconomic policies proved to be insufficiently ...
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Are Pegged and Intermediate Exchange Rate Regimes More Crisis ...
    The paper finds that pegged regimes, as a whole, have been characterized by a higher incidence of crises than floating regimes, for countries that are more ...